jersey cubs fan

I still can't figure out why Lou called that. Jones racks up plenty of strikeouts as it is and that was a pitch he couldn't do anything with. The best result he could have gotten with that pitch was a foul ball out of play; that's pretty much it. I'm concerned with Lou's style of managing. While I don't think he's as prone to stupid and head-scratching decisions as previous managers, I think he tries too hard to micromanage the game. Part of this might have to do with a lack of familiarity with his players' strengths and weaknesses, which is understandable, but if this trend continues, I won't be too happy with it. Cubs had so many chances to win way before that call. That call didn't lose the game, not even close. We could've played another 9 innings and not score. We just couldn't get a big hit when needed. I hear the consensus sounds like the Cubs just couldn't get the big hit despite numerous chances. It should be pointed out the Cubs drew 2 walks to the Pirates 8. That's the key, as it always is with the Cubs. Their OBP yesterday was about .280, absolutely pathetic. Pitt's OBP was .361. They are the ones that had all the chances to score. Add Lou's insistence on running his few baserunners into outs on a regular basis and you have a perfectly good explanation for why the Cubs couldn't score yesterday.

I don't like them either. But I'd bet you'd stay with the service that long even without the commitment. No reason to punish yourself just to pretend you've got freedome to move from service to service.

I never expect a sweep, unless they've already won the first two. I always think in terms of winning the series. It shouldn't scare you that you think a sweep is in question. But the Cubs do have to win series like this whenever possible, especially with the upcoming schedule getting tougher.

If you think that the teams Hendry has put together over the last two or three seasons were terrible and doomed to failure because of the crappy decisions he made and that the injuries to superstars Prior, Lee and Ramirez, plus some important role players, and the larger than normal amount of games missed by injury concerns Wood and Nomar, and the unforeseeable and freakish collapses of Patterson, Dempster and others had little to no effect on the won-loss record of those teams, then yes, he doesn't deserve any credit. But if you think he put together teams that could have contended if it weren't for a lot of freakish stuff happening, then he deserves more credit than you and some others are giving him. If you choose to only look at the total won-loss record over 4 years and not take into account that it looked a whole lot better after his 3rd year before a disasterous season felled by an unusual amount of injuries to key superstar players, then yes, he doesn't deserve any credit. But if you allow yourself to remember the records of the teams before he took over and see how much better his teams were in his first two or even three years combined, even withstanding a rapidly declining superstar and injuries to key players over those seasons, then he deserves more credit than some are willing to give him. From where I'm looking at it, that seems clear to me. Am I missing something that you're seeing? In other words. Things were worse before, so I'm just happy they are marginally better now. Believe me, it's perfectly clear.

What? Hendry hired those guys. It's his job to hire the right guys. But more importantly, Hendry has been the guy who has pushed this backward strategy the hardest.

Hendry hired Baker and kept him on board. And now that's his only fault? Laughable, utterly laughable. I try to fight the argument that Cubs fans get what they deserve because they accept the losing, but it's hard to with so many people making claims like this.

In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job. I don't mean to be flip, but you just restated your opinion without providing any reasons why it should hold up under logical scrutiny. I can make an argument why it is fair and accurate to take into account the state of the team at the time the GM takes over and why it is hard to fault a GM for catastrophic injuries. Can you make an argument for why it is more fair and accurate to judge a GM on one statistic? If you need something to backup the claim that results are what matters in sports then you just don't understand sports. There's nothing else to say. Hendry has been in charge for many years. And before he was in charge of the whole thing he was in charge of the minors. He had as much money and resources to work with as any GM could possibly expect, and he failed. Those people who are willing to accept mediocrity as a goal are satisfied with somebody like Hendry in charge. Those people who want to see a championship are not. It's quite simple. No need to muck it up with the nonsense. There is no logical scrutiny that can tear down the argument that Hendry has done a poor job. There is only BS and lies.

Actually, the problem is he thought leadoff hitter was the problem. Leadoff hitter wasn't the problem. And why Cubs fans are still fooled by this non-existent position is beyond me. But the problem has been that the Cubs don't walk enough and they give up too many walks. Hendry ignores this, instead going after a crap leadoff hitter that anybody with half a brain could see was not going to help the team. Hendry ignored the holes, and concentrated on filling mythological needs.

It worked so well he got fired! That was my first thought as well. Opinions didn't get Stone fired. Opinions kept him gainfully employed for 2 decades. In fact, he wasn't even fired. If anything, you could say arrogance led to him leaving on his own accord.

In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job.

I still don't understand why so many people think of the Cubs lineup as too RH heavy, when this lineup has been fine vs RHP, but has struggled mightily against LHP for such a long time.

You could be right, but I have a hard team imagining a new owner allowing the GM to play out the string on his contract. Most of these guys are either cut loose before that last year is up, or extended beyond that year. It's dangerous to allow a GM without a contract beyond tomorrow to make decisions that can affect an organization for years.

yeah, these past few seasons have been bliss. considering the low payroll the cubs are working with and the tough division they play in, i'm pretty happy with being below .500. The teams Hendry has assembled the last 4 years, have been good "ON PAPER". You cannot fault the GM entirely for teams not living up to it's potential, and "underachieving". Yes you can, because the problem is the people judging them on paper are clueless about what hte problems were with this team. This team had obvious deficiencies that were quite fixable, and Hendry ignored them, choosing to focus on nonsense. These weren't 95 win teams that underachieved. They were crap teams.

Why not? He was in charge of it for years until he became GM. The farm system is his responsibility. I don't get this nonsensical logic. Why does he deserve credit. It's baseball, there are winners and losers. If you lose more than you win, you're bad. Hendry is bad. How hard is this? Why does he deserve credit? Are we grading on a curve? Is it impossible to fail in this class? If Hendry deserves credit, then every GM deserves credit.

David Wright? I think Wright came up as a comp for Vitters, although he's probably not quite the player Wright is. He's not quite the player Wright was, but Wright was a sandwich pick, no? What about him makes Vitters potentially that much more of a pick than Wright? Is it just the depth of the drafts? Or is there more respect for prep 3B now?

I can live with that. Don't know much about any and don't have a strong feeling on any. The last time I did was in my Draft Tex phase. I'd think I'd lean toward Wieters, being a polished and accomplished college hitter, but the Vitters guy sounds intriguing as well. I've been trained not to trust high school hitters loved by scouts, however, given the Cubs history. Who was the last prep 3B comparable to Vitters who had great success in the majors?

What inspiring words. This is the sort of thing that causes people to rejoice over back to back over .500 seasons, complacency and willingness to accept mediocrity as improvement. You're happy with a team that's under .500 since he took control? I can't imagine what he'd have to do to make you unhappy.

That's the only thing wrong with the article, and the one thing the original poster didn't complain about. The Cubs are a square peg round hole team. There's nothing ideal about anything they do.

I think the Cubs will win a lot of games then. This should be a fun summer.

Because he's biased toward veteran players whenever possible. Before anybody brings up Theriot, remember he's not really taking a job from any vets. He's older than Izturis, and Cesar's medical problems means he doesn't have much of a track record for the past few years. Lou has made it quite clear throughout his career that he has no problem starting a veteran, regardless of who is actually better. And this year Murton has not been better than Jones or Floyd...or DeRosa for that matter. So it seems Lou has been starting the better player. SLG/OPS Murton .346/.679 Jones .406/.772 Floyd .431/.774 DeRosa .494/.841 Murton hasn't been given a chance to be better. It's pointless to bring up the small samples you are referring to.

I feel that he is a bad GM because he has been given one of the top payrolls to work with in baseball and his teams have not won. It's as simple as that. I think it's incredibly stupid to try and mark "good" or "bad" next to moves and then decided how a GM rates. GMs should be judged on the results their teams produce. Any GM who has been at his job for 4+ years, whose entire roster is stocked with players he is responsible for acquiring, and who has had a payroll continually in the top 5 of his league, should have a perennial winner on his hands or be considered a failure. If you asked me what I expected of Hendry once it became clear he was going to take the head job, I would have said multiple 90+ win seasons, division titles and playoff appearances. The fact that he was given all the resources he had, and the team's record is under .500 during his rein, is truly despicable. I don't care if he traded for Lee or signed a bum. What matters is the bottom line and the bottom line on the Hendry era has been disaster.

Because he's biased toward veteran players whenever possible. Before anybody brings up Theriot, remember he's not really taking a job from any vets. He's older than Izturis, and Cesar's medical problems means he doesn't have much of a track record for the past few years. Lou has made it quite clear throughout his career that he has no problem starting a veteran, regardless of who is actually better.

Three other guys filed stories at the Herald this weekend as Bruce was off the beat. He'll probably be back for tonight's game.

Youre right. It does give us a better chance to win. The only reason why you would go with Pie and Murton over Jones and Floyd is defense and I think right now we can use every part of offense we can get. Since when are Jones and Floyd automatic offensive improvements over Murton? They are each still sub 800 OPS OF with checkered pasts (Jones usually isn't very good and Floyd usually can't stay healthy).

every day? Hardly.